What if EMHCs were

[ClayPots47]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG View Post
The consecration of the Eucharist is reserved alone to the priest. The distribution isn’t. The deacon may distribute. This is true even in the Eastern Rites, which points that it is a very old Church practice.

See mine from Redemptionis Sacramentum, but specifically the following:

[21] Finally, the structures and forms of the sacred celebrations according to each of the Rites of both East and West are in harmony with the practice of the universal Church also as regards practices received universally from apostolic and unbroken tradition

It is beyond a Pope’s powers to set aside the teachings of an ecumenical council, an ecumenical council is infallible and irreformable, no one whether Pope or a later ecumenical council may later set aside its teachings. Its disciplinary canons are of course subject to reform, but this is hardly a matter of discipline it is a matter of doctrine namely the privileges of the Priest.

Redemptionis Sacramentum addresses each of your points.

It is beyond a Pope’s powers to set aside the teachings of an ecumenical council, an ecumenical council is infallible and irreformable, no one whether Pope or a later ecumenical council may later set aside its teachings.

You are, of course, incorrect. Did you read what Brorther JR explained to you? Let me again quote what Redemptionis Sacramentum says:

[14.] “The regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, which rests specifically with the Apostolic See and, according to the norms of law, with the Bishop.[34]

[15.] The Roman Pontiff, “the Vicar of Christ and the Pastor of the universal Church on earth, by virtue of his supreme office enjoys full, immediate and universal ordinary power, which he may always freely exercise”[35], also by means of communication with the pastors and with the members of the flock.

[16.] “It pertains to the Apostolic See to regulate the Sacred Liturgy of the universal Church, to publish the liturgical books and to grant the recognition for their translation into vernacular languages, as well as to ensure that the liturgical regulations, especially those governing the celebration of the most exalted celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass, are everywhere faithfully observed”.[36]

Its disciplinary canons are of course subject to reform, but this is hardly a matter of discipline it is a matter of doctrine namely the privileges of the Priest.

So, you disagree with Brother JR who holds theology degrees? I thought he explained it quite well that this isn’t an issue of doctrine. It never was doctrine.

Redemptionis Sacramentum states:

Let Bishops, Priests and Deacons, in the exercise of the sacred ministry, examine their consciences as regards the authenticity and fidelity of the actions they have performed in the name of Christ and the Church in the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy

The authenticity and fidelity of the actions they perform, of which one is the distribution of Holy Communion, as they are the ordinary ministers.

 

[ClayPots47]

No, because that documents comes some 500 years after the Council of Trent. Which document is therefore more likely to reflect that councils genuine teachings? A Catechism created to expound its teachings and commisioned by a Pope or a document from a Roman Congregations some 500 years later? To compare the two documents therefore as if they were like for like is to say the least Rash if not foolish.

The Trent document obviously reflect Trent’s teachings, since Redemptionis Sacramentum didn;t yet exist. No comparison was being made between the two. What is rash and foolish, isa your clinging to a 500 year old document regarding a teaching that is no longer in effect. The Church, being organic, adapts and in issues of discipline and traditions, changes. You continue to confuse doctrine with a tradition. The Church didn’t stop at Trent, Ecumenical Councils followed Trent. Popes wrote Encyclicals, the teaching authority set aside and/or abrogated past traditions and disciplines, and adjusted or developed new ones.

Further Redemptionis Sacramentum knows better than to claim that what it is teaching is either Apostolic OR supported by the ‘unvarying practice of the church’ and makes that claim nowhere in the text. The text I quoted does however make that claim and would have more authority than Redemptionis Sacramentum merely by the fact it was commisioned by a Pope to expound the teachings of an Ecumenical Council let alone for the fact that the persons involved in drawing it up and the Pope who approved it are both Saints.

I though it was clear where Redemptionis Sacramentum says:

[21] Finally, the structures and forms of the sacred celebrations according to each of the Rites of both East and West are in harmony with the practice of the universal Church also as regards practices received universally from apostolic and unbroken tradition,[22] which it is the Church’s task to transmit faithfully and carefully to future generations.

The text I quoted does however make that claim and would have more authority than Redemptionis Sacramentum merely by the fact it was commisioned by a Pope to expound the teachings of an Ecumenical Council let alone for the fact that the persons involved in drawing it up and the Pope who approved it are both Saints.

Trent isn’t incorrect, there are two things they are stating in their teachings. That the priest alone has been given both the power to consecrate and administer. Deacons cannot do both. Redemptionis Sacramentum says that deacons also may administer, and gave that power to them. The statements do not conflict with one another at all. One says that priest alone can do two things, the other says deacons may do one. The tradition was modified to include the deacon as also being the ordinary minister of Holy Communion. As for your last statement about saints, since when did canonization guarantee that something they wrote becomes doctrine, and that it therefore has more authority? Must we wait until John Paul II is finally canonized? Must we wait for the same for Cardinal Arinze, who is currently living and apparently enjoying good health? Are you really serious to bring up such a specious argument? Consider these to be rhetorical questions, since you can read this but not reply.

You clearly don’t understand the difference between doctrine and traditions and disciplines; as your username allegedly implies, you apparently think Trent was the end-all of Catholicism. You couldn’t be more wrong. I think Brother JR has been quite patient with you, and explained things quite clearly. Your replies to his patient explanations show disrespect for him as a religious, and also disrespect for the Holy Father, be it Paul VI, John Paul II, or Benedict XVI, who have all been quoted to you, and who’s teachings you apparently reject in favor of Trent. You apparently reject that those popes all exercised their position and authority to abrogate, amend and/or set aside previous traditions and disciplines. I hope and pray you might open your mind and learn and accept what the Church teaches about the authority of the Holy Father and the Holy See regarding these things. The Church didn’t pull into the pit stop at Trent and stay there. She abrogated, modified, amended and pulled back onto the road. She has repeatedly pulled into the pit stop and back on the road. The pope steers and guides her, and pulls over for the next pit stop as needed, guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[JReducation]

The Trent document obviously reflect Trent’s teachings, since Redemptionis Sacramentum didn;t yet exist. No comparison was being made between the two. What is rash and foolish, isa your clinging to a 500 year old document regarding a teaching that is no longer in effect. The Church, being organic, adapts and in issues of discipline and traditions, changes. You continue to confuse doctrine with a tradition. The Church didn’t stop at Trent, Ecumenical Councils followed Trent. Popes wrote Encyclicals, the teaching authority set aside and/or abrogated past traditions and disciplines, and adjusted or developed new ones.

I though it was clear where Redemptionis Sacramentum says:

Trent isn’t incorrect, there are two things they are stating in their teachings. That the priest alone has been given both the power to consecrate and administer. Deacons cannot do both. Redemptionis Sacramentum says that deacons also may administer, and gave that power to them. The statements do not conflict with one another at all. One says that priest alone can do two things, the other says deacons may do one. The tradition was modified to include the deacon as also being the ordinary minister of Holy Communion. As for your last statement about saints, since when did canonization guarantee that something they wrote becomes doctrine, and that it therefore has more authority? Must we wait until John Paul II is finally canonized? Must we wait for the same for Cardinal Arinze, who is currently living and apparently enjoying good health? Are you really serious to bring up such a specious argument? Consider these to be rhetorical questions, since you can read this but not reply.

You clearly don’t understand the difference between doctrine and traditions and disciplines; as your username allegedly implies, you apparently think Trent was the end-all of Catholicism. You couldn’t be more wrong. I think Brother JR has been quite patient with you, and explained things quite clearly. Your replies to his patient explanations show disrespect for him as a religious, and also disrespect for the Holy Father, be it Paul VI, John Paul II, or Benedict XVI, who have all been quoted to you, and who’s teachings you apparently reject in favor of Trent. You apparently reject that those popes all exercised their position and authority to abrogate, amend and/or set aside previous traditions and disciplines. I hope and pray you might open your mind and learn and accept what the Church teaches about the authority of the Holy Father and the Holy See regarding these things. The Church didn’t pull into the pit stop at Trent and stay there. She abrogated, modified, amended and pulled back onto the road. She has repeatedly pulled into the pit stop and back on the road. The pope steers and guides her, and pulls over for the next pit stop as needed, guided by the Holy Spirit.

In reading your last paragraph I must add that it is spiritually dangerous to assume that one can compete with such men as John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI or even Cardinal Arinze. These men are not heretics. That’s the first thing.

Second, these men are scholars. They know what previous popes and councils said. They are not operating in a vacuum. They are surrounded by other scholars. It is inconceivable to think that they do not know what they can change and what they cannot change.

Unless one is their equal in knowledge and in authority, to stand up as if one could debate with them as a peer borders on arrogance, which is very dangerous. It is always a much better idea to assume that if the person is not a heretic, then he knows something that I don’t know or he understands something better than I do. One then approaches with humility and asks to be taught.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ClayPots47]

I hope that you’re never in a hospital where you don’t have a priest to bring you Holy Communion. I’ve been there and it’s not pleasant. I am grateful to the deacons, EMHC and our brothers who brought me Communion and to the Church for allowing them to do so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

He should hope he is never in an area with a priest-less parish. Two of the parishes from where I previously lived are now priest-less. Lay people are parish administrators. The one parish also has a mission church. And they have a Franciscan sister who handles the spiritual aspect of the two churches, while the administrator handles everything else. The sister conducts a Communion Service on Sunday at one of the churches, they alternate so she goes every other Sunday. A priest from the nearby catholic university celebrates Mass at the other church. The other parish ( a very rural small one) has a priest visit monthly to provide the sacraments, EMHC conduct Communion Services the other Sundays, though the parishioners are encourage to travel to one of the church’s in the city if they can, to attend Mass. While grateful for the priest who do come out, those parishes are especially grateful to the Franciscan sister and the EMHC who make it possible for them to have some kind of liturgy and receive Holy Communion.

He should hope he is never homebound and unable to get to church. Or in a rehab center, or living in a retirement home or community and with no access to the Mass. Like those hospitalized, they rely on Deacons, Religious Sisters and Brothers serving as EMHC and lay folks serving as EMHC. Those same people that bring Holy Communion, also arrange for monthly visits from priests for confession and Anointing of the Sick. In some retirement places, they have Communion Services for the residents. I would ask him if he found himself in any of the above, and someone other than a priest came to bring him Communion, would he stick to his rigid stance of only receiving from a priest? Or would he be grateful to be able to receive Our Lord, regardless of who brings Him?

BTW, you have been more than patient in your replies, as you haven’t exactly been treated respectfully as a religious. That’s the Franciscan Spirit, teaching an audience that doesn’t always appreciate you or the message you convey. You always manage to enlighten many of us with your knowledge and education, and many do appreciate your posts and presence on CAF. And for that I say, “Thanks.”

 

[ClayPots47]

In reading your last paragraph I must add that it is spiritually dangerous to assume that one can compete with such men as John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI or even Cardinal Arinze. These men are not heretics. That’s the first thing.

Second, these men are scholars. They know what previous popes and councils said. They are not operating in a vacuum. They are surrounded by other scholars. It is inconceivable to think that they do not know what they can change and what they cannot change.

Unless one is their equal in knowledge and in authority, to stand up as if one could debate with them as a peer borders on arrogance, which is very dangerous. It is always a much better idea to assume that if the person is not a heretic, then he knows something that I don’t know or he understands something better than I do. One then approaches with humility and asks to be taught.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I totally agree, there is a reason why they are in the positions of authority that they are. The Holy Spirit knows what He is doing, He put those men there for a reason. We get to be blessed by their gifts as teachers and leaders. For that we should be thankful, as we humbly defer to their knowledge and authority. I wish dissenters would see things as you so eloquently stated.

 

[catharina]

Indeed, as always, thanks to Brother JR.
To those who are unaware, they might look into the life of St. Tarcicius,
a child saint who was martyred while carrying the Holy Eucharist to early Christians.

 

[ProVobis]

IMHO, EMHC’s should have to wear gloves to handle the sacred vessels, and use one of these special tongs, or something similar for distributing communion.

Not a bad idea. I’ve seen where deacons wear the humeral veil when transferring the consecrated hosts. What’s the sense of that when the laity is allowed to touch them with their hands in the same parish? Seems to be an inconsistency there. Just saying.

 

[JReducation]

Not a bad idea. I’ve seen where deacons wear the humeral veil when transferring the consecrated hosts. What’s the sense of that when the laity is allowed to touch them with their hands in the same parish? Seems to be an inconsistency there. Just saying.

The humeral veil is only supposed to be used for very specific liturgical functions. The use of gloves is prohibitted when touching the host. You must use your hands. Even when taking communion to the sick at a hospital, you may not wear those latex gloves or any kind of glove. I have never understood why the gloves are prohibitted, but it is a very old prohibition. Back in the day when bishops wore gloves, they had to take them off for the Liturgy of the Eucharist. When Padre Pio was stigmatized, the Guardian ordered him to wear gloves, but they had to cut the fingers off the glove, because he human flesh must make contact with the host.

When our brothers take communion to the sick, whether they are priests or not, the are not allowed to wear any kind of hand covering. The same is true for our sisters and our nuns.

If a non ordained brother, a sister or a nun can distribute Holy Communion there is no reason why the indult cannot be extended to the secular layman. The problem is not the indult itself. the problem is that the indult is not properly followed.

The indult is for two very specific needs.

1. The sick
2. When the number of people at mass is so large that it would extend the mass. For example, you don’t want a parking lot with 500 cars trying to leave while another 500 are arriving for the next mass. I help at a parish that acutally has this problem. They have 7 masses and about 800 people at each mass. You figure 800 people, that must be about 300 cars in the parking lot and 300 more waiting to get in. You have to move everyone out before the next crowd arrives.

If you don’t have this kind of crowd, then you’re not really supposed to use the EHMC or if you don’t have a sick person who needs Holy Communion.

Especially in parishes that are served by monastic communities and mendicants, you will often find that the ordained cannot go out to the sick, because they have community activities to which they must attend. You’re not allowed to miss a community meal for something that a lay person can do or to miss the Divine Office. If you’re going out for the Sacrament of the Sick, that’s a whole other story. But the shut-in who receives Holy Communion every week and the patient at the hospital who is not in need of the sacraments of the sick, does not need a priest to bring Holy Communion. If you have a parish staffed by friars or monks, they will send an EMHC. This allows them time for prayer, silence, solitude, community functions such as meals, recreation and LOTH.

Also, in areas where there are great distances to be covered and there is one priest, this indult works very well.

The real problem is that it is over used.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF